Obama-backed Bill to Ban Release of Bush-Era Torture Photos Passes Senate

[Orwellian_Ghost]

By Jeremy Scahill

In a move that didn’t receive much attention, the Senate on Wednesday passed by unanimous consent the Graham-Lieberman bill, which seeks to make it illegal to make public any images of US prisoner abuse and torture from the Bush era. Specifically, the bill bans the release of images “taken between September 11, 2001 and January 22, 2009 relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States.” The Obama White House supports this outrageous legislation whose sole purpose is to make it illegal to reveal the truth about US torture.

At one point, this legislation was tacked on to the war supplemental bill passed by the House on Tuesday, but was removed (for purely tactical reasons) when too many Congressional Democrats objected. Now, it exists as stand-alone legislation (following a deal cut between Obama and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham). Whether or not it passes the House (at this point it seems unlikely), Obama is telling his Republican buddies he’s got their backs:

Graham said at a Judiciary Committee hearing that he had received assurance from White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel “that the president will not let these photos see the light of day.”

“The people involved in Abu Ghraib and other detainee abuse allegations have been dealt with,” Graham said, arguing against the release of the photographs. “Every photo would become a bullet or IED used by terrorists against our troops.”

<…>

http://rebelreports.com/post/125889625/obama-backed-bill-to-ban-release-of-bush-era-torture

[mmonk]

1. Yes. Here's to hoping that the House kills it.

[kenny blankenship]

2. Good news on the economic front: the Ministry Of Truth (Minitrue) is now HIRING!

Up is still Down. Exciting careers await those with skills in communications and symbolic manipulation.

8 years of torturing of the truth wasn't enough, apparently.

[mmonk]

3. I wonder if we can sue for its release?

[cliffordu]

4. I gotta say. It's harder to keep the faith these days....

[Obamanaut]

12. Agreed. The change I was hoping to see appears to be more

of the same instead.

But I haven't quite given up yet.

[cliffordu]

13. I haven't either......

I keep hoping I am missing some long strategy....the Chess metaphor.....But I dunno.....

[Karmadillo]

5. It's all part of the plan. Don't rock the boat. The surge to the left is coming! Soon! Be patient!

nt

[shadowknows69]

18. Indeed. At this rate it should only take about 200 more years.

[rateyes]

6. "The people involved in Abu Ghraib and other detainee abuse allegations have been dealt with..."

Bullshit!

Quick, tell me who is standing behind this glass!



And, I thought we were promised transparency.

[shadowknows69]

19. Exactly bullshit

The bad apples should be freed until the rest of the tree goes to prison too. Because it was rotten from top to root.

[David__77]

7. What the hell is wrong with the senate?!?

I hate that body. I wish we just had a unicameral system.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Well, "Transparency in Government" made a nice slogan.

[blindpig]

9. Ain't bipartisanship wonderful?

Why bother even having political parties, other than to hornswaggle the populace?

k&r

[Orwellian_Ghost]

10. Gotta

keep up the facade.

[G_j]

11. especially during the period of time when the most egregious torture/crimes took place.

totalitarianism at it's best.

[blindpig]

14. Morning kick n/t

[ima_sinnic]

15. wow, what a surprise! and, surprisingly, Obama took the low, safe road.

if anybody thought they were voting for someone who actually believed in change, who would actually take risks for principles, a constitutional scholar who would put the Constitution above all else and lead the country in a new, better direction -- well, I'll admit I was a fool. Maybe the rest of the fools will wake up and vote third party next time, to the point of really changing things.

[cornermouse]

16. Another mistake.

[shadowknows69]

17. I am so disgusted with my country I can't even express it

We are the monsters we fight and we think we can hide it from the world. Al-Qaida gets just as much a recruiting boost from these being witheld as they would if released. Just because we're a dumb bunch of sheeple that wants to hide from the shames of our leaders doesn't mean the rest of the world is so stupid.

[Canuckistanian]

20. So much for transparency

So they just quietly passed this with no fanfare? Do Lieberman and Graham rule the Senate now?

[chill_wind]

21. If War Crimes Cover-up Bill doesn't pass the House, an E.O is possible.

Obama may sign order banning abuse photos: congressman

3 days ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — US President Barack Obama may soon sign an executive order to block the release of photographs depicting abuse of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, a senior congressman said Tuesday.

"I think the president has made his position pretty clear," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Obama's Democratic Party told reporters, stressing that Obama remained vehemently opposed to the sensitive photos' release because they could become instruments of propaganda against US troops.

"I think I have reason to believe that they (administration officials) are looking to that as an option so they can resolve this issue," Hoyer said, speaking of a possible executive order.

link: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gHSA_obSp0MXCMnXIUNLlxRn0YHQ

This bill has not a popular topic on DU. I posted the above about the possible E.O 3 days ago-- didn't garner even one passing comment. The Senate passage of the bill (posted that same evening) could not get more than 4 recs, regardless of number of comments and kicks. (You would think a controversial legislative action like that would get more interest on a Democratic political message board??-- DU is often an enigma to me.) BTW, it passed in the Senate unanimously.

The BushCo Cabal have to be dancing a jig. Even Bush and his counsel have apparently decided it's tentatively safe to come out of his hiding hole to publicly defend himself. Look for the book tours by Christmas.

[Kaleva]

29. Too many outrages to deal with at this time

If it was a slow news period, then this probably would be getting alot more attention here.

[chill_wind]

22. PS- kicked and rec'd. n/t

[jazzjunkysue]

23. What other proof do you need? They're all complicit.

They enabled B* and the GOP. They approved the occupation of Iraq and everything bad that came from it.

Obama's trying to actually fix things. They don't want that.

Right now the house and senate are a ball and chain around his leg.

[chill_wind]

24. I think you're a little confused on this one-- he WANTS the images suppressed.

A deal was cut with the removal of an amendment from war supplemental bill, because it was weighing down the bill. As part of the bargain, he told Congressional leaders he would use every remedy to ensure they would not be released. So pretty much everyone-- Pres Obama, the GOP and the ConservaDems are all on the same page. IOW- yes they are all complicit, but Pres Obama was not hamstrung by the Senate on this-- he wants this legislation--he would rather have Congress do this for him than an Executive Order, but it sounds like he is prepared to go that far if the House doesn't pass it.

[jazzjunkysue]

25. They've got his ass and he knows it. So he's giving them this one just to try and

make something happen on healthcare.
He knows they'll get stuck on this and nothing else will move.

They're the chain around his ankle.

[chill_wind]

26. I guess we will know if it fails in the House

and he lets the will of Congress and the return to the Courts to decide, or whether he overrides that outcome with an E.O.

[shadowknows69]

31. Well if we sent all the war criminals to prison

Then the chains would be round their fucking ankles and President Obama could get back to being a Constitutional scholar again.

[chill_wind]

34. +1

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

40. Ummmm, Obama is trying to block the release of the photos.

Hence, the Bill to justify it......

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/white-house-wants-a-delay-in-the-release-of-detainee-photos/?hp

May 13, 2009, 3:47 pm
Obama Tries to Block Release of Detainee Photos
By Jeff Zeleny


Updated President Obama said on Wednesday that he is seeking to block the release of photographs that depict American military personnel abusing captives in Iraq and Afghanistan, worrying that the images could “further inflame anti-American opinion.”

As he left the White House to fly to Arizona for an evening commencement address, Mr. Obama briefly explained his abrupt reversal on releasing the photographs. He said the pictures, which he has reviewed, “are not particularly sensational, but the conduct did not conform with the Army manual.”
He did not take questions from reporters, but said disclosing the photos would have “a chilling effect” on future attempts to investigate detainee abuse.

The president’s decision marks a sharp reversal from a decision made last month by the Pentagon, which agreed in a case with the American Civil Liberties Union to release photographs showing incidents at Abu Ghraib and a half-dozen other prisons. At the time, the president signed off on the decision, saying he agreed with releasing the photos.

continued at above link

[Solly Mack]

27. and the " few bad apples" lie is further legitimized

“The people involved in Abu Ghraib and other detainee abuse allegations have been dealt with,” Graham said,"

[chill_wind]

30. Obama WH said that too, on his May reversal of his decision

to cooperate with the most legal court ruling on the FOIA.

[Solly Mack]

32. I read his comments

The ACLU has been trying very hard for people to grasp the fact that those pictures are evidence of the systemic abuse and torture because of the exact same methods showing up in several different "prisons" in 2 different countries (with one common factor - US occupation), all within a certain time frame ..a trail that shows the path of execution. And others have been trying hard to not address that very important point.

The DoD/Pentagon addressed it once, as I recall, early on...denying that photos from several different locations in 2 different countries depicting the same methods could be indicative of systemic abuse

Snort..Course, people get confused over which photos are which....whether old photos are new photos...so when government claims all the guilty have been dealt with, some people will believe it. :(

[chill_wind]

35. Of all the Obama rationales given, it is the most disturbing and dishonest.

Bookmarked:

Obama's Roll-Back On "A Few Bad Apples"

One part of Obama's justification in withholding the promised release of additional photos showing abuse of prisoners was the revival of the "few bad apples" defense, which, as noted in my previous diary, xxxxx, was thoroughly devastated by Dan Fromkin. Here's his full treatment:

Then there was the the-bad-apples-have-been-dealt-with excuse. This one, to me, is the most troubling.

Obama said the incidents pictured in the photographs "were investigated -- and, I might add, investigated long before I took office -- and, where appropriate, sanctions have been applied....his is not a situation in which the Pentagon has concealed or sought to justify inappropriate action. Rather, it has gone through the appropriate and regular processes. And the individuals who were involved have been identified, and appropriate actions have been taken."

But this suggests that Obama has bought into the false Bush-administration narrative that the abuses of detainees were isolated acts, rather than part of an endemic system of abuse implicitly sanctioned at the highest levels of government. The Bushian view has been widely discredited -- and for Obama to endorse it suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the past.

The notion that responsibility for the sorts of actions depicted in those photos lies at the highest -- not lowest -- levels of government is not exactly a radical view. No less an authority than the Senate Armed Services Committee concluded in a bipartisan report: "The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own....The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees."

But as The Washington Post notes: "(N)o commanding officers or Defense Department officials were jailed or fired in connection with the abuse, which the Bush administration dismissed as the misbehavior of low-ranking soldiers." And the "appropriate actions," as Obama put it, have certainly not yet been taken. The architects of the system in which the abuse took place have yet to be held to account.

http://www.openleft.com/diary/13377/obamas-rollback-on-a-few-bad-apples


Pack of Liars (cited above)

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, December 12, 2008; 12:48 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/12/12/BL2008121201873_pf.html

[Solly Mack]

36. Thank you for posting that!

Because the "few bad apples" excuse is an egregious lie and it's a lie that should never - ever - for any reason or under any circumstance be advanced by anyone.

[chill_wind]

42. edit

word omission- "most legal" meant to be typed as "most recent legal"

[EndElectoral]

28. Obama should stop using the word transparency. It's a joke.

[placton]

33. the Incredible Shrinking Obama! n/t

[krispos42]

37. I just wrote my Congresscritter

Dear Congressman Oberstar,

I am writing to express my alarm about a recent bill that the Senate, in its infinate "wisdom", passed unanimously recently.

I'm talking about the horrible piece of legislation called the Graham-Lieberman bill. The sole purpose of this bill is to bury the photographic evidence of the various and sundry crimes the Bush Administration committed against prisoners held by us.

I sure wish I could get that kind of consideration if, say, I raped a whole bunch of women. I mean, I'd LOVE to have the Minnesota Legislature outlaw DNA evidence for the time period I was out violating the fairer sex.

Can you imagine if Republicans has proposed a law like this after Watergate hit the papers??? And could you imagine it passing the Senate 99-0???

And this is far worse than Watergate!

He's the rub: we, collectively, committed crimes against these people. These people, once they were captured, were completely at our mercy. And we chose to torture many of them them. It's not just the waterboarding.

Waterboarding is controversial because we can't agree of whether or not it's torture (it is). But waterboarding is far from the worst that we did to the people we had absolute, total, physical control over. We dangled them by their arms from walls. We froze them. We cooked them. We deprived them of sleep for weeks at a time. We crammed them in tiny lockers. We beat them. Sicced dogs on them. Deprived them of food and water. And lord knows what else we did.

Here is the issue that we face, Congressman. What we have done as a nation has hurt us. Has hurt our collective national soul. Now we have two choices to deal with this: we can either bury it, or we can prosecute it.

Burying it is easy and painless in the short term. It's avoidance, plain and simple. And dealing with it in the proper way (investigations, prosecutions, jail time) is uncomfortable in the short term. The right-wing media machine is what makes this so.

However this is not what is good for the long-term interests of the nation. You, your congressional collegues, and everybody in government MUST assume that the United States will exist forever. And Good Government must be the goad of all of your actions now so we can reap the rewards of Good Government generations later.

Therefore, you and your congressional collegues must do what is good long-term regardless of temporary political discomfort.

Gerald Ford failed to do this with Nixon. And we got the extensive corruption and criminals acts of the Reagan years.

Clinton let the crimes of the Reagan years go, which led directly to derisive manhandling of him by the Republican congressional majority and the lawlessness of the Bush Administration.

The Democrats seem intent on giving absolute immunity, and as the author Jerry Pournelle notes, "immunity corrupts, and absolute immunity corrupts absolutely".

Remember, Congressman, Bush lied us into a foreign war, gleefully crapped all over congressional authority and the Constitution, and came damn close to unilaterally dropping ground-penetrating nuclear weapons on Iran's atomic facilities.

This must stop. And it will not stop unless you and your collegues start looking long-term.

I get very tired of hearing "America doesn't need another scandal" by the Republicans when they get caught doing something. Obviously they don't believe it; otherwise they wouldn't have done the scandalous thing in the first place!

But Americans live on drama. We're surrouned by it every second of every day. Soap operas now have their own cable channel. There are a dozen talk shows on daytime TV dealing with silly drama; take your pick. MTV and VH1 and E! are full of celebrity drama. There are three or four Judy Judy-style shows on. There are trashy magazines stuffed FULL of glossy, printed drama available at every checkout stand in America.

Frankly, I think it's time we had some REAL, relevant drama for the American people to sink their teeth into, instead of what baby forumula OctoMom is feeding her litter. We need to see the powerful brought to account.

Otherwise, what are we? And what will the next Republican president do?

We must take the political pain of exposing and coming to terms with what we did to people we rendered helpless. And we must mitigate that pain with investigations and prosecutions to heal the wound in our nation.

I was watching "Clear and Present Danger" a couple of weeks ago... it was on cable TV. Who is to be our "Jack Ryan"? Does any politician in America have the guts to do something besides hide cowardice behind "it will endanger the troops"?

The Senate doesn't, apparantly. And neither does Obama. Do you?

Regards,
<krispos42>

[chill_wind]

39. "Does any politician in America have the guts to do something

besides hide cowardice behind 'it will endanger the troops'?"

Wham! Thank you for writing this-- and posting it.

:thumbsup:

[Yukari Yakumo]

38. Does this stand a chance against the Freedom of Information Act? {nt}

[chill_wind]

41. It could take a long time to find out- too long for some of the statutes of limitations

in some of the oldest cases? Perhaps appeals upon appeals? Obama has reportedly vowed to Congressional leaders fight it all the way.


On the statutes:

There is Only a Little More than a Year Left in the Statute of Limitations Period for Certain Alleged Crimes of Torture: The federal statutes of limitation are a potential problem in investigating and prosecuting certain torture crimes. Although the general federal statute of limitation for most federal crimes is five years, there is no limitations period when death resulted from the crime, and there is an eight-year period for violations of the federal Anti-Torture Act. The ICRC report and the Justice Department Inspector General report on the FBI's role in interrogations both provide substantial details on the torture and abuse of Abu Zubaydah in the spring and summer of 2002, prior to the issuance of the August 1, 2002 OLC opinions. The eight-year statute of limitation period for Anti-Torture Act charges related to crimes allegedly committed in spring 2002 will expire in spring 2010. As a result, a prosecutor has only a little more than a year from today to bring charges for some important and well-documented alleged torture or abuse incidents.

That was written in March:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/39060prs20090318.html

Spring 2010-- less than a year, actually. If he ultimately seals and buries them in an E.O, I don't know what that does to reset the clocks, but I'm betting heavily it would not get all the way through the courts and overturned in a few months.

[chill_wind]

44. More - it sounds like they could just amend the ACT (FOIA)

to provide "statutory exemptions".

S.1285

A bill to provide that certain photographic records relating to the treatment of any individual engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside the United States shall not be subject to disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information Act), to amend section 552(b)(3) of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information Act) to provide that statutory exemptions to disclosure requirements of that Act shall specifically cite to the provision of that Act authorizing exemptions, to ensure and open and deliberative process in Congress by providing for related legislative proposals to explicitly state such required citations, and for other purposes.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SN01285:@@@L&summ2=m&

The Lieberman-Graham Amendment, also known as The Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act, is strongly supported by President Obama. It would amend the Freedom of Information Act — the same one Obama promised to construe liberally in favor of releasing information — to allow the president to conceal the photos of detainee abuse that the administration has already been ordered to produce in a pending lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Oddly, the Obama administration and Senate Democrats seem to have followed the advice of Andy McCarthy at National Review, who a few weeks ago specifically suggested that the administration need not follow the court order requiring release of the photos; Congress, with the White House’s support, could just amend FOIA or adopt a new law to allow Obama to conceal the photos, and avoid having to bother with the pesky federal court system, which so far hasn’t given the administration its way.

The only problem is, how is the Obama administration going to reconcile this move with the President’s eloquent promises on his first days in office?


(...)

So isn’t it strange that the government, rather than appealing a court order pursuant to its rights under the law, now wants to defy the court by asking Congress simply to change the law?

more:
Will House Dems Stand Up to Obama on Torture Photos?
By Daphne Eviatar 6/8/09 3:03 PM

http://washingtonindependent.com/46029/will-house-dems-stand-up-to-obama-on-torture-photos


Holder: Justice can support shield law, with limits

On the photographs of detainees being abused in U.S. custody, Holder reiterated the government's position that they ought not be released. The ACLU sued for access to the photographs under the Freedom of Information Act; both a federal trial court and the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York (2nd Cir.) have ordered the photographs released. The administration has until July 9 to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.

In the meantime, Congress has considered a law that would allow the White House to withhold the photographs.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a sponsor of that legislation, asked Holder whether he thought an executive order from the president, in the absence of congressional action, would carry the authority to overturn the appeals court should the Supreme Court decide not to take the case.

"We hope we'll be successful in the courts," Holder said. "If we're not, we'll review our options."

Graham said the Senate will soon bring a standalone bill to the floor that would give the White House the authority to withhold the photographs; an earlier attempt to find a legislative solution came in the form of an amendment to a war spending bill. That amendment was stripped by the House.

At another point in the hearing, Graham said he had spoken with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel earlier Wednesday: "He's indicated to me that (Obama) will not let these photos see the light of day," Graham said.

link: http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=10843

(bold emphasis mine)


Executive order might block photos' release
By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 06/16/09 12:31 PM

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/executive-order-might-block-abuse-photos-release-2009-06-16.html

[ima_sinnic]

43. the "constitutional scholar" has raised my blood pressure higher than bush ever did

at least I knew what bush was about--his lawlessness, narcissism, greed, lies, etc. were only too obvious. I have to hand it to Obama for thoroughly conning me and millions of voters. He and the rest of the "democrats" can expect zero from me from now on in the way of money and votes. I can see now the agenda to cover up their own complicity, and obama's cowardice and shirking of his fucking constitutional duty. there is nothing he can say now that I will believe or respect.

Note that it passed "unanimously." That means that even Feingold, Boxer, Kennedy, Kerry, and others I halfway believed in also voted for it. bunch of fucking fraudulent assholes, the lot of them.

[karynnj]

45. Three points:

1) This was a vote on the entire budget that they voted for. There was no way they were going to vote against it because of an amendment that does what Obama wants.

2) The people you name have all, in one way or another said they want the truth out. It is entirely possible to get the truth out - and do it without pictures. The fact of the matter is that the memos are far more damning. The photos depict abuses, but the memos list abuses and they prove that it was approved to the highest ranks of the government. (If you don't think words alone create a picture, ask why the right wing is still angry at a war hero who repeated accounts of atrocities. That was taking enormous risks to get truth out - more than most of us will ever take.)

3) Given 2 and the fact that credible people have said that the photos could put our soldiers at greater risk and be used as propaganda more effectively than words, I'm sure each of these people had reservations about the photos being out now. (I do think it would be good to allow release in 20 years for history - but when they would not create as big a furor. Do you want the job of making peace to be harder?

[ima_sinnic]

46. on point #3: bring the troops home: problem solved!

the excuse that our soldiers would be "at greater risk" is the Great Talking Point, the Meme, that everybody has settled on as the Official Reason for not releasing the photos.

One little-noted article posted here a while back indicated one true reason: Obama was informed by generals (or whomever) in Iraq that the place would explode like a powder keg, that the rebellion and insurgency would be monumental. Withdrawing from Iraq would be very bad for the economy, which rests so firmly on war profits and weaponry, and we would "lose face" if Iraq exploded. No, the pretense that "we must be there" must continue, no matter how grim the cost.

The other obvious reason is that the world would be so even more incensed at our war criminals that poor widdle obama would be forced to deal with their crimes instead of "looking forward" and singing kumbaya.

When everybody from congressional pigs to TV talking heads to the president himself chimes in with the same earnest "excuse" for giving war crimes a pass, I take such excuse with a mountain-sized grain of salt, a thorough piece of propaganda bullshit.

Eventually our torture, mass murder, imperialist wars, and unpunished war crimes will come back to bite us in the butt--and I mean all Americans. We have already lost a lot of respect in the world and have been told by world leaders here and there that we have no moral authority over any situation anymore. The shrinking economy, hugely growing homeless population, millions without health care, increasingly unsafe food because of profit-driven industry running the "regulators," lack of manufacturing base, increasingly dumbed down population, increasing lack of support for the mentally ill, elderly, and otherwise helpless/vulnerable, increasingly hostile race situation -- all of these combined with a reputation for wanton war crimes and aggressive imperialism are quickly undoing us. All we really have is the biggest arsenal in the world, the most stolen loot, and a smug, superior attitude.